National intelligence director does not rule out 'extraterrestrial' origins for UFOs

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I already thoroughly destroyed your lies in this thread so I'm not going to rehash the same arguments. If anyone wants to read the thread or the article which shows more corroborating evidence.

Pseudoskeptics have been trying to cast aspersions on this story for years but to no avail.

A new analysis of the Pascagoula abduction
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also read the article:

countryroadsmagazine.com...

This just again shows your dishonesty because you left out the first part of the quote you pasted from Wiki. Let me highlight what you didn't post.

Nickell speculated that Hickson may have fantasized the alien encounter during a hypnagogic "waking dream state", and suggested that Parker's corroboration of the tale was likely due to suggestibility because he initially told police he had "passed out at the beginning of the incident and failed to regain consciousness until it was over",[5][6] a claim supported by Hickson during his To Tell the Truth appearance.

en.wikipedia.org...

You were so dishonest in your quote mining, you started the quote you pasted mid sentence into the paragraph and you failed to let others know this was just speculation from the skeptic Nickell.

This is a very strong case. You may not believe it but you don't have to be dishonest to try and refute it. This is the difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic. A pseudoskeptic can't accept that there's things they just can't explain. I have debated skeptics who have said, I can't explain it but I believe there's another explanation for it. That's honesty. A pseudoskeptic will quote mine to try and obfuscate the truth.

a reply to: neoholographic

...Let's talk about what you have shown because your maps actually support the evidence in ufology. Why should you see more reports in America than other places? It's because America is more open about reporting sightings and encounters with U.F.O.'s. You think Russia, China or North Korea have a freedom of information act and information flows freely in these countries?

So the US government has been actively covering up UFO reports for decades from the rest of the world, but unable to keep them from its own citizens? LOL

The map has nothing to do with FOI. But of course you did no basic fact checking, did you?

The figures for the map were originally taken from the NUFORC database and displayed on the ESRI website.

NUFORC is a North American organization and therefore the reports are mainly from North America and being English lanugage represent the Anglosphere. With the United Kingdom being the next largest English speaking country.

Larry Hatch's UFO Database took a more global sample from the [mainly English language] literature of the 20th century (and a couple of years of the 21st) and shows some differences. France and Brazil rank far more highly there.



The United States was still the source for almost half the global UFO reports which is probably due to certain cultural factors. Including a higher preponderance of credulity amongst its citizens than other nations.

a reply to: neoholographic

Pseudoskeptics have been trying to cast aspersions on this story

What is a pseudoskeptic? You either believe, or you don't believe. Or you don't care (which is the case for agnostics). But you cannot half-believe, pseudo.believe, semi-believe, or sub-believe. So,what is a pseudoskeptic?

originally posted by: Direne

a reply to: neoholographic

Pseudoskeptics have been trying to cast aspersions on this story

What is a pseudoskeptic? You either believe, or you don't believe. Or you don't care (which is the case for agnostics). But you cannot half-believe, pseudo.believe, semi-believe, or sub-believe. So,what is a pseudoskeptic?

I'm glad you asked.

Pseudoskepticism (also spelled as pseudoscepticism) is a philosophical or scientific position that appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but in reality is a form of dogmatism.

Marcello Truzzi, a Professor of Sociology wrote down the characteristics of pseudoskeptics. Many of these characteristics are clearly seen by pseudoskeptics masquerading as skeptics on ATS.

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

1. Denying, when only doubt has been established
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim

This is vs. the characteristics of true skepticism. When I talk about pseudoskeptics I try to contrast them with true skeptics.

1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
2. No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
3. Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
4. Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
5. Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found

en.wikipedia.org...

Sadly, a lot of people that call themselves skeptics today are true believers in their skepticism which causes them to make some horrible arguments.

a reply to: neoholographic

Thanks for the information, neo. Now I see, Mr. Truzzi is simply paraphrasing Mr. Kant, the philosopher, who already explained to us all the different kind of skepticisms. Here, a good book to read about Kant's different kinds of skepticism:


Kant and Skepticism

But, you see, all of the requirements you mention on pseudoskepticism apply equally to pseudo-believers. Actually, both terms are the same. I mean, you can also be accused of being a pseudo-believer. However, in my view, the issue of whether alien UFOs exist or not is not one where you have on one side those who defend its existence, and on the other side those who defend the opposite. A debate can only start when facts are presented, and it is the interpretation of those facts what becomes the relevant matter under discussion.

For what concerns alien UFOs, there are no facts about which any discussion can be started. Unless one takes a dogmatic view.

a reply to: Direne

You said:

However, in my view, the issue of whether alien UFOs exist or not is not one where you have on one side those who defend its existence, and on the other side those who defend the opposite. A debate can only start when facts are presented, and it is the interpretation of those facts what becomes the relevant matter under discussion.

For what concerns alien UFOs, there are no facts about which any discussion can be started. Unless one takes a dogmatic view.

This is where I disagree.

We can start with the fact that U.F.O.'s (Unidentified Flying Objects) or what the government calls U.A.P.'s exists. So this is a fact where a discussion can be started.

You then ask, what's the evidence surrounding the fact that U.F.O.'s exist.

We see pictures, videos, trace evidence cases, cave drawings, paintings, ancient sightings recorded by historians and we hear about close encounters, mass sightings and abduction cases.

We can then make a logical inference as we do in science and in court based on the evidence. In court, they come to a conclusion based on a reasonable doubt not a shadow of a doubt. That's what I do.

I have come to the conclusion that extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings or some say advanced beings from earth, is the only explanation that explains all of the evidence surround the established fact that U.F.O.'s exist.

Let me emphasis that:

I have come to the conclusion that extraterrestrial/extradimensional beings or some say advanced beings from earth, is the only explanation that explains all of the evidence surrounding the established fact that U.F.O.'s exist.

I have a 99% certainty of this and I debate these things with that certainty because I haven't been presented with any evidence of a natural explanation that explains all of the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s. In contrast, I'm more skeptical of bigfoot so it's around a 60% certainty and that's because of evidence connecting bigfoot to U.F.O.'s. For awhile it was around 40% with bigfoot.

My position is just a logical position.

The skeptic is at a disadvantage. They have no natural explanation that explains all of the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s. If tomorrow, you were to assume that U.F.O.'s are extradimensional/extraterrestrial or advanced terrestrial beings, you would no longer have U.F.O.'s because all of the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s would be explained. There's no natural explanation you can say this about. Weather balloons or drones don't explain sightings in space, close encounters or sighting in places like ancient Rome.

The only reason why U.F.O.'s are unidentified is because the best explanation for them isn't accepted because of bias.

Again, saying U.F.O.'s are extradimensional/extraterrestrial or advanced terrestrial beings is scientific because you're making a logical inference based on the fact that U.F.O.'s exist and the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s. If you were to ask people on the street do U.F.O.'s exist, most of them will assume you're talking about aliens. It's just a logical inference which is used in science all of the time.

A pseudoskeptic can't accept that skepticism is in a weaker position. If you're a skeptic, you don't have an explanation that explains all of the evidence, so you can just say I don't believe they're alien and you think there will ultimately be a natural explanation that explains all of the evidence.

A pseudoskeptic is dogmatic and tries to make a weaker position sound certain like Arbitrageur did when he quote mined from Wiki.

Nickell speculated that Hickson may have fantasized the alien encounter during a hypnagogic "waking dream state", and suggested that Parker's corroboration of the tale was likely due to suggestibility because he initially told police he had "passed out at the beginning of the incident and failed to regain consciousness until it was over",[5][6] a claim supported by Hickson during his To Tell the Truth appearance

en.wikipedia.org...

This illustrates my point beautifully. He wanted to present certainty and he knew the quote would be weaker if people knew it was speculation from a skeptic.

This happens all of the time on ATS from pseudoskeptics. True skepticism is in a much weaker position but pseudoskeptics want to project certainty in their position so they make asinine arguments that crumbles under the weight of logic and reason.

Let me emphasis that:

This happens all of the time on ATS from pseudoskeptics. True skepticism is in a much weaker position but pseudoskeptics want to project certainty in their position so they make asinine arguments that crumbles under the weight of logic and reason.

a reply to: The GUT

Thank you

a reply to: neoholographic

The only reason why U.F.O.'s are unidentified is because the best explanation for them isn't accepted because of bias

Neo, I do agree with you bias is a cancer, and that's why the scientific method was created: to avoid bias. However, I disagree with your view of skepticism as a monolithic field whose militants all share the same belief system. UFOs are neither accepted nor rejected in mainstream physics; it simply happens it is not the role of physics to study them, as it is not the role of physics to study cells, life, or death.

Physics is only concerned with laws and objects, and how those objects behave according to those laws. And when an anomaly is found, physics requires to explain the anomaly to the minute detail, and it is clearly open to change the laws if need be. When applying the scientific method to an object called UFO, we simply investigate whether the object complies with the laws of physics. If it does, then there is no mistery for us. Whether the object can be repited as non-terrestrial or terrestrial makes no difference for us for just one thing: if we understand the object, then the object can clearly be human, even if it does not.

This is an important concept, Neo: all of the alleged non-terrestrial ointelligent objects can be understood by physics. And they can be built by humans using known laws. Hence, the debate of whether those objects come from a distant stellar system or not is of no interest to physics. It might be of interest for humans, no doubt about it, but again: humans (life and death) is of no concern to physics.

So, even if I see a giant structure hovering in the middle of a field, glowing in all possible colors, and making all kind of maneouvers, even if the object projects a beam towards a stone and turns it into silver, I would shrug my shoulders and go, for I already know how to build such an object thanks to the laws of physics and, hence I reason, there is no way I could prove the object is not man-made. That's the problem with UFOs: they are nothing out of the reach of human technology. Does this mean they cannot be extraterrestrial? No, it doesn't. It simply means there is no way to tell, but it also means there is nothing here worth to investigate.

a reply to: Direne

Again, this is an example of pseudoskepticism. You speak in absolutes. You said:

Hence, the debate of whether those objects come from a distant stellar system or not is of no interest to physics. It might be of interest for humans, no doubt about it, but again: humans (life and death) is of no concern to physics.

Of course these things are a concern for Physicist. They talk about these things and research it. Do you think the Government will avoid talking to Physicist while looking into U.A.P.'s?

Life and death is no concern to Physicists? What??

That's a blanket statement and one trait of a pseudoskeptic is they like to speak in absolutes. Notice, I said WITHOUT A REASONABLE DOUBT. Pseudoskeptics talk as though it's without a shadow of a doubt and this is because they know the skeptical position is usually a weak one in this area. So it's NO CONCERN TO PHYSICS as if you speak for all Physics.

Here's Theoretical Physicist Michio Kaku talking about U.F.O.'s.



Here's Theoretical Physicist Stephen Hawking talking about this.



Again, the statement that this is NO CONCERN TO PHYSICS is false. It's an absolute that's illogical.

The reason pseudoskeptics talk in absolutes is because they want the certainy of those who believe that U.F.O.'s exist and are extratterestrial/extradimensional.

The U.F.O. believer has a level of certainty because they have an explanation that explains all of the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s. Like I said, if you accept that extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred or advanced terrestrial beings interact with us, then U.F.O.'s are no longer unidentified. We don't know where they come from but we have an explanation for all of the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s like close encounters, mass sightings, pictures, videos and more.

The skeptic is in a much weaker position. True skepticism has to say, I can't explain it but I don't believe it's alien. I believe there will be a natural explanation for all of the evidence someday.

The pseudoskeptic knows this is a weak position but they're true believers. They want to speak in certainty so they speak in absolutes. This is why their arguments are outside the bounds of reason and logic.

a reply to: neoholographic

The U.F.O. believer has a level of certainty because they have an explanation that explains all of the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s.

Neo, the UFO believer is just that: a believer. As such, the believer always needs something in what to believe. The believer is addicted to beliefs. Imagine what's left of a believer if there is nothing to believe in... Believers feed on beliefs. Without them, they die.

That's why the intelligence community feeds them with beliefs, much as politicians feed people with beliefs and promises. There is an entire market of traders selling and buying beliefs; and there are factories manufacturing beliefs. The entire economy is based on beliefs. This is a planet of believers. Jesus expeled the merchants from the temple for a very good reason.

But, as I said, you must keep away from all that merchandising junk and focus on the real thing. Set yourself free from beliefs. Only then you'll be free... to believe.

a reply to: neoholographic

Neo, you make some good points and I have a frame of reference to know what is happening coincides with where the DNI is pointing. And of course, the non reporting of UFOs prior to the 20th is nonsense.

I can not understand your argument about the Firmament. Is that your logical accounting of reality for some flat Earther diagnosis of what Ezekiel supposedly saw?

The pseudo-skeptics on ATS do entertain me. Makes me feel like a time traveler 🧳

a reply to: neoholographic

www.nytimes.com...

The report frustrated some inside the intelligence community who believed more analysis and research should have been done to try to categorize and explain the phenomena. Releasing a report that said the sightings were unexplained further drove theories that the videos or pictures could be visitors from space, a theory that few in the U.S. government take seriously.

Government officials said privately that there was no evidence of Russian or Chinese advance technology in use, much less space-traveling aliens, in the information collected. But the officials acknowledged that the government’s failure to provide much explanation would fuel a wide range of theories, some more conspiratorial than others.

While the unexplained sightings were mostly around military installations or operations, the report said that could be the result of collection bias or the presence of cutting-edge sensors.

a reply to: Direne


T

The entire economy is based on beliefs. This is a planet of believers. Jesus expeled the merchants from the temple for a very good reason.

Yeah, they were peddling belief with 12 percent interest, one percent for each tribe! The 13th percent is you get a bite of Jesus.

a reply to: neoholographic

True skepticism has to say, I can't explain it but I don't believe it's alien. I believe there will be a natural explanation for all of the evidence someday.

True sceptics would say "I don't know what it is. Where is the evidence they [UFOs] are of alien origin?"

...The U.F.O. believer has a level of certainty because they have an explanation that explains all of the evidence surrounding U.F.O.'s.

a UFO is an unidentified flying object. Once it become identified then it is no longer a UFO.

...if you accept that extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred or advanced terrestrial beings interact with us, then U.F.O.'s are no longer unidentified.

So where's the evidence for that?

still waiting for something concrete

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: turbonium1
Just ignore thousands of years where nobody ever saw UFO's or aliens, and then it all works out like a charm!

Again, the above post proves you wrong.

No, I just TOLD you that you cannot ignore the last thousand years of human history, because it offers a VALID, TRUE comparison, with today.

You cannot ignore all the previous centuries, UP TO NOW, and cherry pick ancient cave drawings, twisting it into your 'alien' argument, claiming we've 'always' seen 'aliens' and 'UFO's' before now!

That's you ignoring the last thousand years of human history, without a SINGLE report of 'aliens' or 'UFO's'!

Nobody today claimed to see flying chariots in the sky, and/or humans with hooved feet flying those chariots, right?
Whatever they saw, or claimed to see, thousands of years ago, it clearly does NOT fit into your argument. Not even close to it.

I know that you're trying to ignore over 400 years of history, because it destroys your whole 'alien' argument, instantly....

Ironic that you'd claim people once believed in myths and fairy tale creatures, from their 'ignorance', while you believe in aliens from 'outer space', creatures from 'space', is NOT based on ignorance!!

Trying to ignore over 400-1000 years of human history, human records, human literature, which show NOBODY EVER saw 'aliens' or 'UFO's', is a tactic your side plays all the time, and it may fool people. But others know it's BS, same as I know it's BS.

The problem is many people don't ever consider our past, our historical records, when it comes to 'aliens' or 'UFO's'.....why? They never tell us about it, they point out ancient cave drawings, possibly depicting 'aliens' or 'UFO's'!

We don't even know if cave drawings are FROM ancient times, or fakes, or whatever....Even if they are legit, isn't known for sure. I've assumed they are legit, for argument's sake, anyway.

You should know that 400 years without one alien seen, or one flying craft seen in the skies, above Earth, except those accounts of chariots flying above Earth with hooved human crews, of some sort. That's about it. Other than cave paintings, they claim to find a trinket of brass, which looks just like a modern day jet airplane, supposedly.

How would these 'ancient' people, centuries before human flight existed, create a trinket of a modern day jet?

Why would some goof claim to know who really created that trinket, if it even is authentic, must have been created by some sort of ancient people? It's all BS.

It all comes down to nobody ever seeing or mentioning any 'aliens' or 'flying objects' in the skies above Earth, in daylight, or at night, as a light moving in the skies, etc.

All of this is BS.

a reply to: turbonium1

Lol

Are you really this arrogant and intellectually lazy or are you just trying to get a rise out of people? Please tell me you're just some know it all 12 year old. No way you're a grown man. Lol

Never heard of the Dogon tribe? Never read Ezekiel? Never read ancient Indian texts? Never read the numerous stories of ancient peoples who claim to have been taught by "gods" who descended from the stars? Never read the letter from the Roman soldier describing burning shields in the sky that followed them while on a campaign? Maybe the other written accounts going back to at least the Roman Republic? Maybe the written accounts or artistic representations of the Nuremberg mass sighting in the 1500's?

So many more examples but I really don't think you're worth the time. You're obviously about as hard headed as they come. Save yourself some time. Instead of responding to this post, do some more reading.

These accounts are from ancient times, and very distinct from any sort of 'alien/UFO' sightings above Earth, like today's accounts are described.


What about the last 400 years before the 20th century, never one mention of aliens or UFO's anywhere at all? You want to explain that? You really think you can ignore 400 years of human history, which rips your claim to shreds?


Trying to ignore 400 years of recent history is ridiculous, and desperate. Grow up, and deal with the reality for once.

They're simply picking out ancient events which describe a God, a chariot, and so forth, and try twisting them into 'alien sightings as described in ancient times!'

Apparently, the ancients described flying chariots, piloted by humans with hooved feet, but we see them as 'flying saucers' or some sort of craft,

If they saw flying chariots crewed by hoofed humans, instead of flying saucers, that'd take some heavy-duty acid trips, buddy! Nobody would mistake UFO's of today for flying chariots crewed with hooved humans, except one desperately trying to make a lost argument about 'aliens and UFO's' being seen all the time, except for thousands of years, when we never saw anything at all!


Explain why nobody saw anything for over 400 years, I need a good laugh....